DaniWeb IT Discussion Community

News Story 9 Free Linux Distributions: A Linux Free For All

khess — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:41:22 GMT

Have you searched for Linux distributions that are 100% free? Did you find more than one that suited your needs? Well, here's a list of nine from which you can choose your favorite. Free means freedom to alter, redistribute, sell or release as a different product with no restrictions on you or your new distribution.

1. BLAG - Blag is an operating system. Blag has a suite of graphics, internet, audio, video, office, and peer to peer file sharing applications. Based on Fedora, Blag has just about everything you'd ever need for productivity and fun.

2. Dragora - Dragora is an independent distribution of GNU/linux based on the concept of the simplicity. It aims to be a multipurpose, stable and powerful operating system while maintaining the simplicity of Unix. The initial release of Dragora was June 13, 2008. Dragora GNU/Linux 1.1 was released October 8, 2009.

3. Dynebolic - A GNU/Linux distro that focuses on audio/video production with a host of applications such as Jack, SuperCollider, Csound, Fluxus and of course Pure Data with a great collection of externals (PDP, PiDiP, Gem, GridFlow, RRadical, PixelTango).

4. gNewSense - a GNU/Linux distribution based on Debian and Ubuntu, with sponsorship from the FSF. This is the distribution that Richard Stallman himself uses--so you know it's good because he could use any of them.

5. Kongoni - Kongoni is the Shona word for a Gnu (also known as a Wildebeast) the animal which inspired the name of the GNU operating system. The name represents the spirit and history of Kongoni, a GNU/Linux operating system of African origin. Kongoni is a desktop-oriented operating system with a strong belief in being truly free software. This means that Kongoni will neither include nor ship any software not under a license approved by the Free Software Foundation.

6. Musix GNU+Linux - Based on Knoppix and oriented toward audio production, Musix contains a giant repository of free software. Don't let the website fool you; Musix is available in a variety of languages including English.

7. Trisquel GNU/Linux - Based on Ubuntu, with all proprietary and non-free software removed, Trisquel is a free and easy to use operating system with multi-language support.

8. Ututo - The first fully free distribution recognized by the GNU Project. This one is Gentoo based and is actively developed in Argentina.

9. Venenux - VENENUX GNU/Linux is a free/libre operating system primarily for people in Ibero-America. It aims to cover the needs of any type of user, with software for almost every necessity while remaining fast and easy to install. VENENUX is the fruit of the work of a group of people of different Hispanic countries.

There are a few distributions that come close to free but still contain non-free and proprietary software, allow you to install non-free software or advertise non-free software during the installation process. These will be listed in an upcoming post so watch carefully for that. In the meantime, if you can check out these nine very capable distributions and report back to me on how you like them.

What do you think? Is it important or not for a distribution to be composed of and only allow free software?

News Story It's On! Ubuntu and Microsoft Going to the Mat

khess — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:12:01 GMT

Ubuntu's CEO, Mark Shuttleworth fired one over Microsoft's bow with a statement that the soon to be released Ubuntu 9.10 is ready to go head-to-head with Windows 7 on Netbooks. He also said that Windows XP is still hanging around on some Netbooks as a "ghost." Shuttleworth wants another shot at the U.S. market with his new Ubuntu 9.10 and Ubuntu One offering. Ubuntu One is a file backup and sharing service where registered users receive 2GB of free storage and 50GB of storage for $10 per month.

I hope that works out for you Mark. I really do. Ubuntu is the ultimate Linux distribution built upon the best parent distribution (Debian) available today.

There's just one small catch: Not everything works yet.

That's actually a pretty big catch.

Windows has the best driver and application support. It also has the advantage of having the favorite corporate Kool-Aid taste. In other words, big companies like Windows because it's created and supported by one of the world's best companies: Microsoft. I know what you're thinking: "He's a traitor" or "He's being paid by Microsoft." I wish it were true that someone was paying me some big buckazoids to say these things but they aren't.

I love Linux. It's my favorite operating system. I use it and support it every single day of my life--and have for the past 14+ years. I have a full system dedicated to it and at least virtual machines running Linux various flavors. It has shortcomings for a user interface (formerly known as a Desktop) computer.

Linux is the best server operating system currently available. No question about it. On the user side, well, that's another story. Though I'm a big user of all Linux distributions (Ubuntu, Debian, Red Hat, CentOS), I use it almost exclusively as a server operating system.

At one time, I used Linux as my primary desktop but I just can't do that any more and haven't for a long time. The reason? Mostly it's about ease of use and compatibility. Sure, I could use OpenOffice.org and remember to Save As all the time for everyone who uses MS products, I could forfeit my QuickBooks, I could use web-based apps for everything and I could just play Delta Force any more too. That last one would certainly make my wife happy. But I don't want to have to go to a lot of trouble just to use a computer.

I'm afraid Mr. Shuttleworth has his work cut out for him when trying to compete with Microsoft for user attention. It isn't likely to happen any time soon. There are too many issues and problems surrounding the use of Linux for a user's computer. One is peripherals and gadgets like phones, iTunes, printers and Netbooks.

Netbooks? Hey, that's what started this whole post. What's wrong with Ubuntu and Netbooks? Probably nothing, but for Mark Shuttleworth to assume Ubuntu 9.10 is going to compete favorably with Windows 7 on Netbooks, he must have something up his sleeve. I hope it's more than just a little magic or marketing hype because I've seen Windows 7 and it's good. Really good. I've also seen Ubuntu 9.10 and it's good too. Really good.

It should be an interesting showdown when both have had a chance to be Netbook-proven.

What do you think about the best operating system for Netbooks? Is Windows XP a ghost? Is Windows 7 all it's cracked up to be? Will Ubuntu 9.10 break in to the Netbook market in a big way?

News Story Android Shmandroid, Who Cares?

khess — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:41:07 GMT

It's a cell phone for crying out loud. Do you get it? A cell phone. You know, you make and receive phone calls on it. It's a telephone that you carry around in your pocket. Who gives a rip whether it's equipped with a web browser, a file editor or an ice cream dispenser; it's a telephone. People who care about the operating system or applet X on a cell phone are either under the age of 18 or don't have anything better to do with their time.

I don't really care that my cell phone uses some version of Microsoft Windows or Linux or Mac or OS2. I just don't care. As long as I can make and receive phone calls, I just don't care.

I apologize to all my faithful readers who want me to rail against the oppressive Microsoft and its crashy Windows operating system and champion our collective free software fight but when it comes to the operating system on my cell phone; I just don't care.

I remember a day when telephones, cell phones included, didn't have (or need) an operating system. We survived somehow without one. We survived without browsing the Internet on our telephones and we're still here alive and kicking to tell you about it. We also didn't need to 'text' anyone--especially while driving.
Do you want to know why we didn't need to text someone that, "we're bored?" We didn't need to. We had a telephone that dialed their number so that we could say in a loud, clear voice, "OMG, I'm sooooooo bored."

Yes, that's right, we actually spoke. With our voices. To each other. In some cases, we actually met face to face (f2f) with each other and some of us actually enjoyed it. I know that sounds crazy but we did it.

And social networking, that was hanging out together at the mall, clubs, scouts, school, or in (gasp) special interest groups.

Oh, far be it from me to suppress your non-creative, non-blinking idle chit-chat on Twitter, Facebook and the like but, and this is way off the hook (a term from old telephones that you picked up off the "hook"--oh never mind...), when we had an emotion, we didn't have to create a three-stroke winky face to show it, the other person could actually see and hear our emotion by looking at or listening to it.

Sorry, I digress.

So, why should I care that my cell phone has which operating system or any operating system at all? I don't. It could be Android, Shmandroid, KlaatuNix, CharlesMansonNix or even BalloonBoyNix for all I care. I just want to make and receive phone calls--reliably.

So wot do u think? R u bored w/ cell OS talk 2? Holla back n tell me. TTYL. ;-)

News Story 5 Reasons Why You Should Switch to Windows 7 (And 5 More Reasons Why You Shouldn't)

khess — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:58:32 GMT

Yesterday was Microsoft's big day. Windows 7 was released. Did you go buy your copy already? Are you waiting? Whether you have or haven't doesn't really matter but I'm going to give you my five reasons why you should switch to Windows 7 and five more why you shouldn't. Both are compelling and perhaps might change your mind one way or another.

This list might seem odd coming from a guy who ordinarily writes on Linux topics, but as an IT professional I have to work with all operating systems and deal with their quirks accordingly. This is my list of reasons to switch and not to switch based on my experiences with both Windows and Linux--and more specifically Windows 7.

The Five Reasons to Switch to Windows 7:

1. It's new. That's right; simple enough. It's new. What's better than a new version of an operating system (OS)? Windows 7 is a new OS which brings a lot of new promises and hopes to a world that has either held on too long to Windows XP or had issues with Windows Vista. In either case, Windows 7 is a refreshing change and it's long overdue.

2. It's not Vista. Vista was Microsoft's biggest mistake since Windows Me--and no, I won't let it go. Windows Me was bad. Really bad. Windows Vista is also very, very bad. It's slow, it's clunky, it's often unresponsive and it is not a pleasure to use. Every computer, except one, I have upgraded to Windows XP from Vista every time I see it on a computer that I have any control or say so over. Being Not Vista is a very compelling reason to switch. I think Microsoft owes Vista owners a huge discount or a free copy of Windows 7 and an apology for Windows Vista but that's just me.

3. Performance. Windows 7 boots way faster than any other MS OS since Windows 3.1. It's impressive to say the least. It also was an almost complete rewrite of all subsystems from a performance standpoint. It takes advantage of multi-core processor technology and it has the same hardware requirements as Vista--so that means you don't have to go out and buy a new computer to run it. Windows 7 feels "lighter" and snappier than even Windows XP. It runs comfortably on Netbooks, which is a huge boost over the not recommended for Netbooks Vista.

4. XP Mode and Virtualization. All of your applications should run fine on Windows 7 if they run on XP. 7 also has built-in virtualization with Virtual PC if you purchase the Ultimate or the Enterprise version.

5. Smooth Upgrade Path from Vista. Windows 7 upgrades from Vista without issue but don't expect that behavior from a Windows XP to 7 upgrade; it won't work. To do this upgrade, you'll need a third party product or you'll have to wipe out your Windows XP installation and install Windows 7 fresh.

The Five Reasons to Not to Switch to Windows 7:

1. It Isn't Windows XP. To this you might be saying, "Duh" but I have a good reason for saying this: Windows 7 is more 'Vista-esque' in its behavior than XP is. So, if you're expecting a smooth cutover to 7 from XP, fugettaboutit. It's not the same. Oh there's still the familiar Control Panel, Programs and so on but when you look for your "My Documents" folder, surprise, it isn't there. There's a Documents folder under Libraries. Libraries replaces My Documents for some odd reason. Libraries is where you'll find your documents, music, pictures and videos. But, there's another surprise for you. If you go poking around a bit under your user name: C:\Users\username, you'll see a My Documents folder which is an alias to your Documents folder under Libraries. Cool, huh? Why the change? Who knows? Basically, Microsoft has "Macified" Windows 7 with all this 'I don't know where on the actual disk my stuff is' design. Oh, well, get used to it; it's what you've always wanted: A Mac for less than half the price.

2. It Isn't a Desktop Savior. If you're going into a Windows 7 upgrade with the hope that Windows 7 is the finest operating system since DOS, you're sadly mistaken. Windows 7 is Microsoft's apology for Vista. Windows 7 is really a transitional operating system for Microsoft. It is the OS that will keep you quiet long enough for them to work on and launch the true next generation of operating system, which will be something totally unique.

3. It's Expensive. Microsoft made no real apologies for Vista in the way of a cheap upgrade to Windows 7, so go into this with your eyes open to a cost ranging from $100 to just over $300, depending on the version you choose to use.

4. It's Still Windows. Another 'Duh' moment but allow me to explain that statement. "It's still Windows," means that you'll still have the same issues that you've always had with Windows operating systems; this one is no great stray from the mother ship on that matter. Expect lots of patches that require rebooting, driver issues, security fixes that also require rebooting and a fantastic array of new viruses, malware and spyware specifically designed to target 7's weak spots.

5. It Ain't Linux. OK, yet another 'Duh' for the list and I'm sure that I'll receive rancid attacks from the Microsoft Fanboy Cheering Section on this but hear me out first. People are so quick to call some new version of an OS as a "Insert your least favorite operating system here" killer. Well it ain't. It ain't Linux and it ain't a Linux killer by any stretch. In fact, there will be a great number of people and companies who will mull the switch from their current operating system to either Windows 7 or some Linux distribution. Windows 7 prompts us to take a good long look at vendor lock-in, fewer freedoms and more expense. It ain't Linux and it ain't free.

Have you seen Windows 7 yet? Do you expect to upgrade soon or are you going to wait? Tell me about your plans to switch or to wait and why.

News Story 2009's Top 10 Reader's Choice Linux Distributions

khess — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:17:24 GMT

My "10 Best Linux Distributions of 2009" list drew a bit of disdain from some of my readers, so I thought I'd make it up to them by posting a list of Linux distributions that they like to use. Since I have no way of knowing which of these distributions is better or worse than the others, I've place them in alphabetical order instead of any real ranking based on quality, community, development cycle or other criteria. I want to show you, faithful reader, that I do indeed read your comments and take your feedback seriously. You have a voice and I thank you for using it--this is your list--by you and for you.

Since I'm not familiar with some of the distributions on this list, most of the information is taken directly from the distribution's own website.

1. Arch Linux - Billed as a lightweight and flexible Linux distribution that tries to Keep It Simple. Arch Linux is an independently developed, i686/x86-64 general purpose GNU/Linux distribution versatile enough to suit any role. Development focuses on simplicity, minimalism, and code elegance. Arch is installed as a minimal base system, configured by the user upon which their own ideal environment is assembled by installing only what is required or desired for their unique purposes. GUI configuration utilities are not officially provided, and most system configuration is performed from the shell by editing simple text files. Arch strives to stay bleeding edge, and typically offers the latest stable versions of most software. Arch Linux uses a "rolling release" system which allows one-time installation and perpetual software upgrades. It is not generally necessary to reinstall or upgrade your Arch Linux system from one "version" to the next. By issuing one command, an Arch system is kept up-to-date and on the bleeding edge.

2. Gentoo - I included Gentoo in the original list but I thought I'd include it again since so many readers responded positively to it. Gentoo Linux, a special flavor of Linux that can be automatically optimized and customized for just about any application or need. Extreme performance, configurability and a top-notch user and developer community are all hallmarks of the Gentoo experience. Gentoo is a free operating system based on either Linux or FreeBSD that can be automatically optimized and customized for just about any application or need. Extreme configurability, performance and a top-notch user and developer community are all hallmarks of the Gentoo experience. Thanks to a technology called Portage, Gentoo can become an ideal secure server, development workstation, professional desktop, gaming system, embedded solution or something else -- whatever you need it to be. Because of its near-unlimited adaptability, we call Gentoo a metadistribution.

3. Hannah Montana Linux - I laughed out loud when someone asked me why I didn't include it in my top 10 for 2009. It's a real distribution, based on Kubuntu, with a Hannah Montana theme. Hannah Montana Linux is fast, stable and powerful. It includes a Hannah Montana themed boot screen, KDM, icon set, ksplash, plasma, color scheme, and wallpapers. It is not vulnerable to Windows viruses. I've tried to keep my eight-year-old daughter from seeing this one--so far, so good.

4. Mandriva Linux - Very popular in France, Brazil and some African countries. On the consumer side, Mandriva develops and distributes Linux distributions: Mandriva One, the light, easy to use and safe free distro, Mandriva Free, the pure GPL free Linux distro, Mandriva Powerpack, the complete and customizable distro for the power user and Mandriva Flash, the mobile desktop USB key. Free products are available for download from the Mandriva site. Commercial products are available through Mandriva's electronic store, in retail stores and through partners worldwide. The company provides a number of electronic services through its web site. It evaluates its number of users to a few millions. On the corporate side, Mandriva helps large and medium size organizations to migrate to Linux, thanks to its Corporate Desktop and Corporate Server products and helps them administer large number of machines thanks to its system administration tool, Pulse. The company provides to its corporate customers technology, products and services (consulting, training and support). It has about 100 corporate customers.

5. Mepis - Mepis is a Debian-based distro that touts its ease of use, user friendly interface and a live CD image that allows you to try before you commit. The unique nature of MEPIS Linux makes it an ideal foundation for developing a custom version of Linux for large scale deployment. MEPIS is available to work with integrators and end user clients to develop privately branded and optimally tweaked Linux configurations.

6. OpenSUSE - OpenSUSE advertises itself as follows: openSUSE is a free and Linux-based operating system for your PC, Laptop or Server. You can surf the web, manage your e-mails and photos, do office work, play videos or music and have a lot of fun! The openSUSE project is a community program sponsored by Novell. Promoting the use of Linux everywhere, openSUSE.org provides free, easy access to the world's most usable Linux distribution, openSUSE. The openSUSE project gives Linux developers and enthusiasts everything they need to get started with Linux. I didn't include it in my top 10 for 2009 list because it might come in the top 20--just not the top 10. I don't hate openSUSE but it definitely isn't one of my all-time favorites.

7. PCLinuxOS - PCLinuxOS was founded in October 2003. The flagship product, the PCLinux operating system, is a free, easy-to-use Linux-based operating system for the home. PCLinuxOS was founded by Texstar, and is headquartered in Houston, Tx. PCLinuxOS is distributed as a LiveCD, and can also be installed to a local hard drive. LiveCD mode lets you try it without making any changes to your computer. If you like it, you can install it to your hard drive. Locally installed versions of PCLinuxOS utilize the Advanced Packaging Tool (or APT), a package management system (originally from the Debian distribution), together with Synaptic, a GUI frontend to APT. PCLinuxOS has a script called mklivecd, which allows the user to take a 'snapshot' of their current hard drive installation (all settings, applications, documents, etc.) and compress it into an ISO CD/DVD image. This allows easy backup of a user's data and also makes it easy to create your own custom live CD/DVD.

8. Puppy Linux - Puppy Linux calls itself; small, fast and free OS. It is a small but full-featured distribution. Puppy Linux is an operating system for computers. Puppy Linux is based on GNU/Linux. It is completely free and open source software. At ~100MB it's worth checking out for a mini distribution. I put Damn Small Linux in my list because I've used it for some time and this was the alternative that some of my readers suggested.

9. SUSE Studio - While SUSE Studio isn't really a distribution, you can build distributions from it--as long as you want them to be openSUSE-based distributions. SUSE Studio is a website that assists you to build customized appliances for use as standalone machines or as virtual machines. I'm including here simply since it was mentioned by a reader. I love SUSE Studio and highly recommend it for others to use. The only drawback is that you can only use openSUSE. If there was something else this cool that you could use the distro of your choice with, I'd be willing to purchase it.

10. Tinycore - Tiny Core Linux is a very small (10 MB) minimal Linux GUI Desktop. It is based on Linux 2.6 kernel, Busybox, Tiny X, and Fltk. The core runs entirely in ram and boots very quickly. Also offered is Micro Core a 6 MB image that is the console based engine of Tiny Core. CLI versions of Tiny Core's program allows the same functionality of Tiny Core's extensions only starting with a console based system. It is not a complete desktop nor is all hardware completely supported. It represents only the core needed to boot into a very minimal X desktop typically with wired internet access. The user has complete control over which applications and/or additional hardware to have supported, be it for a desktop, a netbook, an appliance, or server, selectable by the user by installing additional applications from online repositories, or easily compiling most anything you desire using tools provided.

Someone also mentioned FreeBSD, which is not Linux but is still worth a mention. I'm not a huge fan of it and though it touts itself as very secure, it was the only system on my network that ever got hacked. I didn't install or support the system; one of my employees did and noted that one day it was hacked and owned by someone who did a fair job of covering his tracks though we did trace his steps back through several other systems and notified each one along the way.

There you have them, my reader's choice list for their favorite Linux distributions. Do you have a favorite that wasn't covered by either list? Write back and let me know.

News Story The 10 Best Linux Distributions of 2009

khess — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:00:05 GMT

It was exactly one year ago today that I published my original "The 10 Best Linux Distributions" and it's time to put forth a new list for this year's best. Without looking at the old list, I've decided to compile this one from scratch. This 2009 list takes several factors into account for placement in the list: Community support, commercial support, software variety, update engine and distribution frequency. Even for old Linux salts, there are a few surprises on this list. For starters, Ubuntu is not number one.

The problem with this list is that I don't hate any of the distros that I've entered here. Even number ten is one of my all time favorites but something has to be on top and something has to be on bottom. Check out the list and see what you think.

1. gNewSense - Ever since my conversation with Richard Stallman, I've decided that gNewSense is the distro that claims the top spot for this year. Based on Ubuntu, which is based on Debian, gNewSense contains only free software. It's also the distro that Stallman himself uses--how can you beat that?

2. Debian - Debian is a GNU/Linux distribution that has it all: Great support, unsurpassed stability, awesome developers, a huge community, dozens of offspring including Ubuntu and gNewSense, regular updates, apt-get, thousands of ready-to-install programs and it makes a great user computer or server system. Debian also has the best hardware discovery of any distribution, which is probably why it's used to parent so many other distributions. If Debian has one weakness, it's commercial support. There's no Debian, Inc. for businesses to point to should something go awry. For businesses to adopt a particular distribution, it must have commercial support. For some, the risk is too great otherwise.

3. Ubuntu - Ubuntu picks up the slack where (don't confuse this with SlackWare which doesn't make the list this time.) Debian leaves off. Ubuntu offers commercial support, albeit somewhat expensive support through Canonical, Ubuntu's commercial sponsor.

4. CentOS - This distribution is Red Hat Enterprise Linux compiled from sources. It is still my personal distribution for my user/server computer. I do most of my testing on it. I use Debian for testing as well in virtual machines but they all ride on top of my CentOS computer. I spoke with Karanbir Singh, Project Lead of CentOS a few weeks ago and he gave some insight into the project that I had not heard or read before. Listen to the original podcast, if you get a chance.

5. Fedora - Fedora is the community version supported by Red Hat, Inc. It is what we used to call Red Hat Linux. It's also the version of Linux that Richard Stallman says comes pretty close to being an all free distribution. If you can impress Stallman, you've done your job. Fedora is often a bit unstable because it is out on what some call the 'bleeding edge' and is for those who are a bit more on the adventurous side. Don't use it for production. For production purposes, use CentOS if you don't want to purchase a commercial Linux distribution. Just as a side note, this is one of the funniest true stories I've ever read. It would still be funny if it weren't Oklahoma but since I live here, it makes it even better.

6. Red Hat - Short of being blessed by Richard Stallman or Linus Torvalds, how can you not love Red Hat? It was one of the first companies that bucked the Microsoft-only trend and gave it a go on Linux. It worked. Red Hat is the most profitable and successful Linux/Open Source/Free Software company in the world. It's very profitable and it keeps growing. It is one of three Linux distributions that ever makes its way into large companies as a supported operating system. SUSE (Not on this list) and Ubuntu are the other two.

7. Gentoo - Do you have a few free weekends and a need for something that goes ZOOM when you're done? Gentoo is for you, then. Gentoo is not for those who are wanting to download, burn and boot; it's for those who like to tinker, twist and fidget with something until it's perfect. If you want something that rocks, and is rock-solid when you're done, then you want Gentoo. Gentoo is the Harley-Davidson of the Linux world. It's cool. It's stable. It's hot. It's also a royal pain in your backside. If you're impatient, like me, keep moving and just appreciate Gentoo from afar.

8. Knoppix - Yeah, Knoppix, baby. It's cool like that. Knoppix is one of those "Show it, don't explain it" distributions. If you want to try to explain Linux to someone, show them a Knoppix Live CD. They might never look at a Windows computer again. It's that good. If you have an old computer that won't handle a large hard drive, buy yourself a fast CD/DVD ROM drive and download, burn and boot Knoppix for your user computer. Save your documents and files to the 'too small for Linux' disk and never look back.

9. Presto - Got Windows but also want Linux? Get Presto. I installed it on my netbook and I love it. When I'm in a hurry and just want to check email or make a Skype call, I boot into Presto and get to work in about 15 seconds flat. It's the best $20 you'll ever spend.

10. Damn Small Linux - Damn Small Linux (DSL) is the cool of cool in small distro land. In as little as 50MB, you can have a full Linux computer and in these days of operating system bloat; that's a real winner. DSL isn't just small but it has features you'd expect from larger distributions: Web, RDP, Terminal Services, SSH, productivity tools, SSH server and much more. If I ran a company with more than just a handful of employees, it's likely that DSL is what I'd use for their user interface possibly as virtual desktops on a hypervisor system. If you haven't experienced DSL for yourself, you should. Download, burn and boot. It's impressive.

If your favorite distro didn't make the cut, I'm sorry, maybe next time. Perhaps you can convince me to write up another list of my reader's favorites if you write back and tell me what they are.

News Story Richard Stallman Speaks

khess — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:20:52 GMT

I had the honor and pleasure of speaking to Richard Stallman a few days ago while he was in New Zealand on a speaking tour. I had been in an email conversation with him over several days asking about which software programs he uses and I finally connected with him for some clarification and more details. So, if you've ever wanted to get the scoop straight from the man himself, you'll want to listen to the podcast.

The conversation begins abruptly because the phone conversation is a continuation of that email dialog. We also got cut off at one point during the interview and I had to call back.
I found him to be very personable, articulate and a pleasure to speak with. He was very patient with my nervous fumbling and was quite happy to discuss free software, his software choices and even his choice of computer.

To begin, I wanted to know not just about free software and the movement but his personal choices and I got quite a surprise. He is definitely no hypocrite. He is so much of a free software advocate that he even chose his personal computer because of the type of BIOS it uses.

I personally feel that using only free software is very limiting and would be very difficult to successfully accomplish. Richard Stallman doesn't find it difficult at all.

After speaking with him, I wrote "What Free Software Means" and placed it over in the *nix Software forum. Our conversation has certainly changed the way I speak of free software and my perspective on the whole movement.

For the bits that we didn't get to in the phone call, here is the list of software that Richard Stallman uses on a daily basis:

Operating System: gNewSense
Email: Rmail
Editor: Emacs
PDF Viewer: xpdf
Audio: Audacity

He doesn't typically use a browser unless he views html offline. He only uses OpenOffice.org when someone sends him a file in those formats. My guess is that if you send him a proprietary file formatted file, he would either not open it or send you back a message stating that you need to convert the file to a free software alternative.

I liked speaking with him so much that I asked for another interview where we could actually have some time to sit down and do something in-depth. He agreed. He will be in southeast Asia next month and I'll catch up with him for that interview. Stay tuned for that one.

For more information on Richard Stallman, go to the Free Software Foundation site and GNU.org.

News Story Warning: Apple Hardware in Danger from the DOJ

khess — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:50:12 GMT

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is investigating IBM's computer market conduct and, depending on the outcome, it might just affect your beloved Apple computers. As everyone knows, IBM is the major player in the mainframe computer market but now their business practice of not licensing other hardware makers to run their software is causing issue.

The following excerpt is from an article by Associated Press writer, Jordan Robertson:

Quote:

The accusations stem from claims by IBM rivals that they've been illegally frozen out of the mainframe market because of IBM's refusal to allow its mainframe operating software to run on non-IBM computers. IBM doesn't have many rivals anymore that make mainframe computers, but some smaller companies are trying to develop technologies that would allow the software to run on cheaper hardware.

They allege that IBM, which used to license its mainframe software to competitors and for the back half of the last century operated under an antitrust agreement with the government, stopped doing so in recent years to choke off competition.

It's possible that you don't realize the implications of these two paragraphs. Let me attempt to clarify them for you.

IBM created the mainframe software. It runs on IBM mainframes. IBM used to license it to other companies to run on their hardware. They stopped doing it. Now their competitors are upset by this practice.

Implication #1: If the DOJ finds against IBM, it essentially takes away IBM's right to innovate and compete in a market they created.

Implication #2: Apple is in a similar quandary, should the DOJ rule against IBM, in that Apple only licenses its operating system for its own hardware. Apple never sanctioned clones like IBM did in the PC market.

Implication #3: Apple clones will undermine Apple integrity and quality that's been their mainstay for all these years.

Implication #4: No company will ever be able to tie their operating system with hardware. For example, OS400 will have to be licensed for AS400 compatible hardware, mainframe zOS will have to be licensed for IBM mainframe compatible hardware, Solaris will have to be licensed to run on Sparc compatibles and the Mac OS will have to be licensed to run on Apple compatibles (aka Hacintoshes).

Implication #5: Cheap commodity hardware (read 'throw away') will dominate the world's data centers and become such a tragic loss for IBM, Sun (Oracle) and Apple that they each might release their software to the public as 'community' versions but still maintain their own proprietary branded software that runs specifically on their own hardware.

Not all bad, you say?

You haven't considered the real implication that summarizes all five of the others: If you can't innovate and outdo your competitors, why be in business at all? Why should Coke license Pepsi to pour Coke into Pepsi bottles? Why should Chevrolet license Ford to use Fisher bodies on their cars?

At one time, I believed that Apple should have licensed its operating system to run on clones but they were smart in not doing so. When you own an Apple product, you have Apple quality, Apple support and Apple service behind that product. If you have a clone, you have no Apple to assist you because clones can be made of anything.

I'm afraid of situations where innovation and quality are challenged. I don't want to trust mainframe operations to a clone. I don't want my niece to use an Apple clone in college. Too much depends on the integrity of both.

The DOJ hasn't ruled yet but I'm expecting the worst from them.

The only hope is that IBM and Apple would make those license purchases so prohibitively expensive that it would be pointless to purchase them without the proper hardware underneath.

What do you think? Should the DOJ take away IBM's right to innovate? Should they also take away the quality associated with the Mac or a Sun system?

News Story WWIII Coming to a Computer Near You?

khess — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:08:01 GMT

No, I'm not talking about a Linux vs. Microsoft or Apple vs Microsoft but rather a prediction by UN Telecommunications Agency Chief Hamadoun Toure'. Apparently, the U.S. Homeland Security and other U.S.-based paranoia groups agree since US Secretary for Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said that she received the green light to hire up to 1,000 cybersecurity experts to ramp up the United States' defenses against cyber threats. Need a job?

To launch such an attack successfully would take thousands of experienced hackers in different locations simultaneously attacking a site or sites with malicious intent. Depending on the type of attack, it would easily be thwarted with IP bans, router bandwidth restrictions or reverse denials of service. And, not just from the U.S. Any country with ISPs worth their salt would catch these attacks and deny access to the users initiating them. An attack like this would also require a lot of bandwidth and would easily show up in bandwidth reports.

If it is a foreign government sanctioned attack, once the culprit is identified, it's bombs away on them. I don't see that a full-scale cyber war is possible. The renegades would be cut off, identified and dealt with in non-cyberspace ways.

Is such an attack possible? Yes. But it would have to be well-coordinated and extremely covert. So, is an attack like this likely? No. I don't see WWIII being waged in cyberspace--a cute thought but it wouldn't work. But, hey, if it means hiring 1,000 cyber security nerds for government jobs, more power to the paranoia. I just hope they select their 'experts' more wisely than I'm going to assume they will. My guess is that any cyber security breaches will come from within the ranks of those hired to prevent such attacks.

Quote:

"I don't know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." Albert Einstein

News Story Ubuntu 9.10: First Impressions

khess — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:59:42 GMT

Ubuntu has redeemed itself with its latest version 9.10 (Karmic Koala). I took a look at Ubuntu 9.10 on October 1st and have been playing around with it for a few days. My first impression is that it is good stuff--seriously good stuff. From the new, updated installer to the faster boot times, I'm impressed. Way to go Ubuntu developers, you deserve applause for this one.

I didn't think that Ubuntu 9.04 (Jaunty Jackalope) was all that great. There weren't enough improvements over 8.10 to justify a whole new distribution or wasting a cute name on it.

Karmic Koala's installer is the best I've ever seen on any Linux distribution. It's fast, nice to look at and, most important of all, it's easy for people who might be new to Linux. Click through a few screens; enter your name, login name, password and computer name--and away you go toward having a new Ubuntu system. The more difficult part for most users will be the download, burning of the ISO image to a CD and changing their BIOS to boot from the CD/DVD drive.

Boot times are also much improved. This isn't necessarily limited to just Ubuntu as several Linux distribution developers have been working toward shortening your wait time in the boot department.

Once inside GNOME, you recognize all the familiar desktop items. Nothing new going on here although you might notice a few cosmetic changes with your startup screen and desktop background. I'd have to say though, that the improvements made are well worth the wait from older versions.

If you've been waiting to jump in to Ubuntu, Karmic Koala is the place to do it. And if you have an older versions, this is the one to upgrade to. Wait for the production-level release to come out later this month because right now the 9.10 distro is still in beta.

One word sums up this Karmic Koala Ubuntu incarnation: Super.

Have you tried Karmic Koala yet? Write back and tell me your first impressions.

News Story What Free Software Means

khess — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:20:56 GMT

You often hear the terms 'free software' and open source used interchangeably but they're not the same. In fact, true free software zealots launch into a fiery diatribe on the issue should you even utter the words "open source" when speaking of free software. Free software is not related to the amount of money you pay (or don't pay) for software; it is an ideology. Free means freedom. Most writers relate the concept to free speech or free beer, however, neither fully illustrates the concept.

Free software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), comply with the Four Freedoms.

Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.

Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.

Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies.

Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

So, you see, for Freedoms 2 and 3 to be met, the source code must be available. And not only must it be available, it must be available for modification for any purpose, commercial or otherwise. These two freedoms make the term 'open source' redundant and unnecessary.

The other major issue with the term 'open source' is that it does not imply freedom of any kind. Just because you can look at the source means nothing from a freedom perspective. Restrictions might keep you from modifying the code for any purpose, redistribution or charging for your new version. These restrictions are abominable to the FSF and its members.

The two key points to remember are:

Open source and free do not mean the same thing.
Free software has nothing to do with price.

For more information, please visit the Free Software Foundation and the GNU website.

News Story Is Microsoft the Newest Free Software Advocate?

khess — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 02:53:04 GMT

What the heck is happening in Redmond? Is Microsoft really giving away antivirus software? Yes, friends, it appears that they are. Come on Microsoft, we really want to hate you. I've carried this Microsoft voodoo doll* around with me for years--stabbing it every time I have to pay money for one of your products on a new laptop or desktop computer. I cringe when I see "Vista Ready." And, I almost hurl penguin when I have to activate my software. So, somebody please pinch me, wake me up, take the needle out of my arm and tell me it's all been a bad trip.

Microsoft giving away software is like Donald Trump giving away real estate. First, they come up with that dastardly excuse for an open source lab they cleverly named, Port25. Next, they have the nerve to donate money to The Apache Foundation. A couple of months ago, they made their new flagship virtualization platform, Hyper-V, available free of charge. Then they founded The CodePlex Organization headed by Sam Ramji. Now, they're giving away antivirus software.

My head hurts.

What's next for Microsoft? Are they going to join the Free Software Foundation?

My head really hurts.

It must be global warming that's causing Steve Ballmer's hair and brains to fail him. Steve, are you sure about all this? Microsoft is the most hated company in all the world. Stop this madness. You're giving your legacy a bad name.

My head hurts so bad that I'm now banging it on my pile of Microsoft original product CDs.

Is there no end to their audacity? Oh, there I said it: Audacity. Now they'll go buy that or donate money to it or somehow make it better...I mean worse, don't I? This is all very confusing.

My head is numb from the holographic impressions made into it by the legal copies of my Microsoft software.

I'm starting not to hate Windows and Redmond and Ballmer and even the blue screen of death is looking pretty to me now.

Oh, what's happening to me?

The lines between free software, open source software and commercial software are blurry as is everything else in my room.
Wait, I feel funny. Linus, is that you?

Abort, Retry, Fail?

* It's actually a purple Teletubby but I call it my Microsoft voodoo doll (It's called artistic license--read about it).

News Story One For All and All For One: A Single Linux Distribution

khess — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:12:51 GMT

Since I check my linkbacks religiously, I noticed one of the comments over at linsux.org (An anti-Linux rant site) on my recent post, "5 Things You Can Do to Put Linux in the Driver Seat" and thought I would share one of the entries with you. He wants us Linux types to stop work on so many disparate distributions and focus on a single one. Is this a good idea or the best idea I've ever heard?

He lists a few items, beginning strangely at #6, that he wants Linux fans to cease and desist on but the one that caught my attention is #10:

Quote:

OEF (His site nickname)
Stop making web press releases every time someone tosses a bunch of open-source crap and artwork onto a CD. "Chuckie's Linux" will not change the world. In fact, it further muddies the landscape. Pick a distro. Just ONE damned distro and work on improving it.

Wow, OEF, whoever you are; you have my vote for the Grand High Exalted Poobah of all that you survey in Open Source and Linux. I like the idea of a single distribution. It really simplifies everything.
I love the idea of having a single distribution upon which to bestow our time and energies.

The only problem I see with it is, which one are you gonna choose for THE distribution? Will it be SUSE, Debian, Red Hat, Gentoo, or Slackware? Since it has to be a top-level distribution and not a derivative, it will have to be one of those--unless I've missed one.

Let's examine those choices.

Novell's SUSE Linux is a decent choice. It's well-supported, not that expensive, developed by some of the best programmers in the business but is a bit conservative for those leading-edge nerds.
Debian is a wise choice since it is the GNU Linux distribution and not particularly partial to any platform or company.
Red Hat is a great choice. One of the first commercial distributions, one of the best supported and most widely used distros in the IT world and is home to the most profitable of all Linux-based companies.
Gentoo--I don't know--since you can have a Gentoo operating system based on either Linux or FreeBSD, this one leaves me a bit cold. Sure it's secure and cool with its Portage but let's face it, if we wanted a hybrid operating system, we could opt for Mac OS X.
And, finally, we have Slackware. Poor, poor Slackware, I used to love you so but now your luster has faded in favor of the shinier, sexier Debian and Red Hat distros. Sorry Slackware, you just don't make the cut.

So, really we have to choose from Red Hat, Debian and SUSE for a single distribution. We need to be able to point a finger at someone when things go wrong for businesses to feel comfortable enough to use Linux, and Debian doesn't have that, so that leaves us with just Red Hat and SUSE to choose from.

Since I've had fewer bad experiences with Red Hat than with Novell, I'm going with Red Hat. Congratulations, Red Hat, you're now the one and only Linux distribution for the entire world! No one can make illegal copies of your software, in fact; no one can make any copies of your software, no one can take your software and create anything new from it because it's now basically proprietary and it no longer needs to be open source.
You are the sole creator and maintainer of this, our only Linux distribution. Manufacturers will flock to you to create drivers to work with our, I mean, your distribution so that we may all enjoy the fruits of your labors.
Of course, we can all still create third-party applications that work with your distribution but since you make the bulk of your own apps too, we might need to worry with that at all. Your office suite, programming suite, browser (oh you will create your own won't you?), gaming software, mapping software, web server and database server are the bomb and we love them all. We will only buy your products because no one else's have the same cool feature sets or 100% compatibility that we all need.
You are our one stop shop for all our operating system and application software needs. Thanks Red Hat, for being THE one for everyone.

I think I've heard this story somewhere before.

News Story 5 Things You Can Do to Put Linux in the Driver Seat

khess — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:32:42 GMT

This is a plea to all hardware manufacturers: Please create Linux drivers for your hardware. OK, so Linux isn't the Stormin' Norman of the Desktop arena but that doesn't mean its users don't want or need drivers for hardware. I don't blame the kind volunteers that donate their time to program bits and pieces of the Linux kernel and associated programs but I do blame the hardware manufacturers for not supporting a huge user base of Linux users. I'm tired of it and it's time for action.

Here's what we can do:

1. Any time you find a piece of hardware that doesn't have a Linux driver, write to the manufacturer and request that a Linux version become available for it.

2. Boycott any hardware that doesn't explicitly work with Linux.

3. Check hardware compatibility lists and only purchase hardware that does work with Linux.

4. Document your experiences with hardware successes and failures and post them to your blogs or notify me and I'll post them.

5. Join the Linux Foundation or the community distribution network of your choice and contribute (time, money, resources) to the project.

Collectively, we can put enough pressure on hardware manufacturers to supply Linux drivers for their hardware. It's in their best interest to do so.

Manufacturers say that there isn't enough Linux deployed to justify spending resources on creating Linux drivers and potential business adopters say that without proper driver support, they'll never make the switch. So there you have it. A classic standoff. A stale mate. No one will make a move because no one can move.

Join me in my new quest to convince hardware manufacturers to supply us with much needed Linux drivers.

Write back and tell me if you've made any progress or received answers to your requests. I'll post them here in a future entry.

News Story Ubuntu Spelunkers Need Help

khess — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:49:24 GMT

This is the third entry in the continuing "cave dwellers" saga and their new lives with Ubuntu. Someone posted a comment on the previous cave dwellers entry about iTunes not working on Linux and I was absolutely sure that it did. It doesn't. Much to my surprise (and disappointment), iTunes isn't available as a native application on Linux. What's a penguinista to do? Try WINE of course!

I installed WINE, downloaded iTunes' latest Windows application and installed the file. Quicktime and some other applications installed but no iTunes. I tried several times--still no iTunes. I googled. Nope, still no iTunes.

I turned to the youngest cave dweller (13) and said, "I know I've heard you play music on this, how did you do it?" He said, "Napster." I then asked him how he downloaded and synced music with his phone. "We don't. Not since you gave us Linux. We have to use Mom's laptop (Vista)."
I sat silent for a moment until my wife said sarcastically, "Linux not working for you, dear?"
"Yeah, it works for the important stuff" I retorted.
I told the boys that I would research these issues and get back to them.

My wife also asked about printing to our printer (Canon iP1600) from their laptop. I said, "I don't have that working yet." The printer is shared off of my Windows XP workstation. I tried using alternate drivers but it's no use, it would never print their documents. My workaround was to copy their work to my Windows computer and print from there. It's just as well, since their papers need much editing and polishing before being turned in to their teachers.

Yes, I updated the system. Yes, I searched for applications and extras to make everything work. Yes, I'm going to wait for 9.10 to see if it makes any improvements before concluding that this isn't going to work for them. Although they aren't particularly put off by Ubuntu's or my shortcomings on these, I still feel responsible.

They can do 90% of what they need to do and 50% of what they want to do on Ubuntu. I still think it's the best choice for them and me. I've heard no slowness complaints, no viruses, no spyware, no oddball connectivity problems and no random freezes requiring a flurry of reboots.

Ubuntu works. Not perfectly. But it works. It's not for everyone. It might turn out that it isn't for them either but at least I'll be able to say we tried.

Write back and tell me what works or doesn't work with Ubuntu or other distros. I'd be glad to try anything to get printers, iTunes and mobile phone syncing to work; so let me know your experiences.

News Story That Dream Formerly Known as the Linux Desktop

khess — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:34:01 GMT

I will never again refer to the Linux Desktop in any of my writings beyond this post. From now on, it's the Linux User Interface, which encompasses the likes of GNOME, KDE, LXDE, XFCE, CLI and others. These Linux User Interfaces may be used on any Linux-enabled device. These interfaces are not limited to a single type of machine designated as a 'desktop' and I'll not diminish the importance of them by mentioning them in that realm again. Since the dream of a world blessed with desktop computers running Linux is a dream (and a far-fetched one at that), I'll leave its reference to the lesser of my literary colleagues to ponder.

Instead, the Linux User Interface (LUI - pronounced Louie), is now a catch-all for any of the aforementioned window managers. And LUI might refer to a desktop computer, a server computer, a wristwatch, a PDA or a netbook running Linux with a particular window manager running on it. The LUI is how you interact with the operating system and not a particular class of computer.

Gone are the days of the hopeful Linux Desktop. Gone are the days of the tumultuous desktop wars. Gone are the dreams of one day waking up and finding that the US Government has converted to Linux desktops. And gone are the days of my attempts at convincing the world that anything but Windows or the Mac OS will ever serve as a desktop user interface for the masses.

As cryptic and elusive as the lyrics of the Kingsmen's song Louie, Louie; The Linux LUI is a mystery unto itself. I can't unravel it and I'm going to stop trying.

News Story Mr. Torvalds, Shrink That Kernel

khess — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:13:18 GMT

Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux kernel, said at the LinuxCon in Portland yesterday that, "We are not the streamlined, small, hyper-efficient kernel I envisioned 15 years ago," he said. "Our kernel is huge and bloated. Whenever we add a new feature, it only gets worse." It's time to put Linux on a diet. What we need is a very small kernel that loads support via external files. Though Linux is a modular kernel, it seems that everything gets compiled in to the central code slug but I have a solution.

Instead of making the kernel impossibly huge and compiling in support for device X and peripheral Y, let's move support for all devices to XML files and just have the kernel read the ones we want. No recompiling. No derivative works in the kernel. And no debate needed between Tannenbaum and Torvalds over microkernels vs monolithic kernels.

Move support for everything to a directory or special filesystem, like /proc, where all of the necessary XML files reside. The kernel picks them up and uses them with no changes to the kernel and no kernel bloat required. Now, I have to tell you that IANAP (I am not a Programmer) by any stretch of the imagination but it seems to me that this would have been something that others would have thought up before now.
I'm a long-time user of Linux, an early adopter and the founder of the local Linux User's Group back in 1996. The first meeting of that LUG was spent on teaching others how to recompile their kernel so that they could add or remove support for devices and peripherals.
This was, and is, a totally unnecessary activity. Recompiling a kernel should be reserved for very rare circumstances.

Admittedly, I haven't recompiled a kernel in at least four years. I just deal with what I'm given at this point. I no longer have the energy or the time it takes to recompile and recompile and recompile until I get it just so.

So, to Linus and the other kernel maintainers: What do you think? Can we make this work? Pull out all of the kernel bloat and make it cafeteria style.

I wonder if Andrew Tannenbaum would like this idea?

What do you think of my plan to truly modularize and right size the kernel? Write back and let me know.

News Story Please Reinstate the OS Wars

khess — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:40:14 GMT

All the glass clicking and cheers of late surrounding the apparent conversion of Microsoft to the open source fold needs to stop. We need the Cold War. We need Communism. And, yes, we need the OS Wars. Like any war, the OS Wars stimulate creativity, spark religious battles and divide the wannabes from the true innovators.

Give me back the days of the Linux zealots who hate Microsoft so much that they remove Washington state from the US Map. Return me to those days of all Microsoft shops that threaten firing to anyone even uttering the word 'Linux' on company property. Send me back in time to the days of "Ken, why are you wasting your time with Linux?" I want to hear Microsoft bigots pronounce Linux with a long I.
Where are the days before every Windows desktop ran a Linux virtual machine? Where indeed.

I want to wax nostalgic about the strange days of Microsoft's open source strategy to kill Linux and how it didn't work. The annals of history recorded that their attempt was a failure. Reminiscing about how every open source company shook hands with Microsoft and became a collective force against nothing is what I want.

We need an enemy. We need for Microsoft to be the Spain and Britain of colonial times when planting your flag on a land and oppressing its people meant something. It meant competition. It meant conquering new territory and claiming it for your own--natives be damned!

I want our victories to be victories of valor and of painful wounds--and most of all to be victories of a distinct belief system. I want real victories not Masada-esque ones. My dream is for Steve Ballmer to send a messenger to Linus Torvalds demanding that he and his merry band of 300 developers surrender their code to him and for Linus' response back to be: "Come get it."

We need Microsoft. We need for them to be our enemy--our sworn enemy. They and their kind are evil. They represent the evil empire. We need the OS Wars lest we fall prey to their evil-undoings and become part of their evil plot to destroy all that is good in the world.

May the best OS win.

News Story Cave Dwellers Give Ubuntu Two Thumbs Up

khess — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:34:20 GMT

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote, "Has Linux Fallen Into a Well?." It was a tale of two brothers, aka The Cave Dwellers, who had too many complaints and angst concerning the Windows XP installation on my wife's old HP DV-5000 laptop. Reinstalling XP didn't do any good the last time I did it, so I decided to give them Ubuntu 9.04 in its place. All I did was to tell them how to login and left the rest up to them.

Two days after the installation came the first question: "How do I install the Adobe Flash Player in the web browser?" I told them to follow the on screen instructions and promptly shooed them out of my domain (cave).

They've used the laptop non-stop since I reimaged it with no problems reported. They do all the usual stuff with it that they did with Windows: Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, web browsing, iTunes, Email and word processing.

My printer comes on and prints homework and their occasional "wows" and "cools" have let me know that the laptop is serving them well so far. I've heard much less door kicking and muffled cursing from them since the big switch to Ubuntu. Now the only door kicking and muffled (and not so muffled) cursing only originates from me.

So, I have to humbly say that Ubuntu is the best thing to happen to that laptop in the past 3 or 4 years and I'm glad I made the transition. I think the boys will learn more about computing from this experience and will have a richer experience with a computer that "just works" instead of the constant frustrations that began this whole incident.

Ubuntu also allowed me to put off buying another laptop for at least a year or so. My daughter, 8, is not so moved by the change. She still assumes that the laptop is slow and painful to use. Did you get that? My 8 year-old daughter branded the laptop as slow.
Kids these days! They're so spoiled--when I was 8, I would have been glad to have any computer--problem was that personal computers hadn't been invented yet nor could I have afforded one anyway even if they had. Sorry, I had a flashback to the Stone Age for a moment.

In a weird way, I'm a bit disappointed that the boys made the transition from Windows to Ubuntu so easily. I expected wailing, gnashing of teeth, name calling and my image burning in effigy--or perhaps the real me being tortured by them placing my beer just out of my reach or something equally as sinister. They seem to enjoy using it but I'm sure someday they'll complain to their kids about Grandpa and the old recycled laptop.

I'm still waiting, almost patiently, for the second question.

News Story Will Microsoft's Open Source Initiative Kill Linux?

khess — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:45:50 GMT

Yesterday, September 10, 2009, the announcement came that Microsoft launched and is funding a new open source organization named CodePlex Foundation. The major players in the new organization are from Microsoft, Novell and DotNetNuke. Does this mean that a brave new Microsoft is beating its proprietary, closed-source swords into open source plowshares? Maybe.

Maybe not.

Is this new effort a ploy by Microsoft to garner goodwill from the open source community and open our collective heart for a big Redmond hug? Can it be that Microsoft is through saying, "Put up your dukes" and is attempting to preen its Lion's mane and snuggle up to the open source lamb?

Some see Microsoft as a wolf in sheep's clothing on this issue--gaining our trust and letting down our guard only to strike with enough venom to kill off our most prized open source possession: Linux.

Microsoft has a history of "interesting" business behavior but current economic conditions might be sending a message to the formerly blood-starved brains of those at the helm that it's time to declare peace--at least for a season.

Someone needs to research to which of Nostradamus' quatrains this refers as I'm sure he predicted this before the end time.

First, they conjured Port25, then donated major dollars to the Apache Foundation, recently they gave away Hyper-V (as in free, $0.00, priceless) and now the final deathblow: CodePlex Foundation.

If I were a suspicious person who felt that Microsoft had something dark up its sleeve, I'd certainly let you know. If I were a gullible fool that believed every word of corporate speak and double-talk I hear, you'd have never seen this post. On the surface, I'm proud of Microsoft for this new era of business cooperation but underneath that thin veneer am hoping that it isn't a Trojan Horse waiting within our walls.

So, what's Microsoft up to with this extended-hand initiative? Am I paranoid or prudent? There is a time to be silent and a time to speak--this is a time to speak--write back and tell me what you think.

News Story Year X is NOT the Year of the Linux Desktop

khess — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 20:49:36 GMT

This year is not the year of the Linux desktop. Next year is not the year of the Linux desktop. In fact, NO year is the year of the Linux desktop. Every year, there are at least ten writers (Ashamedly, I'm included in that ten) who proclaim that the current year or the upcoming year will be the year of the Linux desktop. I've given up hope for it. I've given up on the idea of an acceptable level of Linux adoption on the desktop. I've given up on the prospect of ever having corporate Linux desktops and I think everyone else should too.

The Desktop Wars will be over forever.

By the time there is widespread acceptance for Linux desktops, it will be too late. Web-based desktops will replace the old school heavy desktop operating systems of today.

Netbooks will be the desktop of tomorrow with no local operating system. Oh there might be a JEOS (Just Enough Operating System)--a minimal system whose only job it is to get you to a network (LAN or Internet) but not a traditional OS with applications, office suites, games or the like.
For service subscribers and everyday users, your operating system will consist of a web-based desktop lookalike that is in reality a fancy web page. Renegades, like you and me, will have the choice of web-based desktops or virtual machines that run what looks like a traditional desktop stored on some remote server.

Forget the Desktop Wars, the Browser Wars, The Office Suite Wars and any other petty religious nonsensical wars relating to software. Your service provider will determine which desktop, office suite and browser you use when you connect to and use their services. Chances are there will be ads in all of them, subtly placed to entice but without too much 'in your face' interference.

Will this futuristic web-based desktop society take away your choices?

Yes and no. Having a service provider won't prevent you from using some other online services, suites, applications or even desktops but beware that there might be some penalties involving their use. Think along the lines of certain satellite TV services that don't have your local stations or some phone companies that don't provide 911 emergency call access.

So, it's goodbye to any hope of a sweeping adoption of a Linux desktop. I've put down my banner. I've put down my sword. I've put away all my propaganda for the Linux desktop. I submit to the will of the web designer, service provider and the advertising executive.

I've hoisted my white flag on this one.

News Story Has Linux Fallen into a Well?

khess — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:18:31 GMT

Does it seem to you that Linux distributions have fallen into to a well or other deep support chasm that defies the space-time continuum? It seems so to me. Linux distributions are lagging behind Windows and Mac in significant ways.
Well, it doesn't work for this chipset. Well, it works but you have to tweak it. Well, it works but...is the common theme for many Linux installations. This generates frustrations for users old and new. It's hard to convince someone to use Linux when it's even hard for me to do something that would be impossible for a newbie.

For example, yesterday I had heard enough complaints from my kids about their shared Windows XP laptop's slowness, unresponsiveness and general lack of pep. I summoned them all from their caves (Rooms with TVs) and told them to save off their valuable documents, songs and other files of interest to a flash drive because I am going to reimage the laptop. They complied. I planned to reimage it with Ubuntu 9.04 Desktop. There began my problems that appeared to remain unresolved until I put Windows XP back on it.

Don't fret, I went ahead with the installation of Ubuntu 9.04.

The installation went fine. The updating via apt-get went swimmingly. Sound, wired networking, video--everything was just perfect--until I tried to use the wireless networking, that is. The kids have to use wireless because the only wired connections are in my office and I don't want them in that close proximity to me for extended periods of time. I have to work, after all.

Much to my disappointment, though, my built-in Broadcom wireless network adapter wasn't supported by default. Why does it seem like that Linux supports everything except what I have? This is why, as I told a friend of mine, Linux will never unseat Windows as the reigning desktop computer dominant force. Never.

Oh, don't think for a minute that I'm turning my back on Linux--I'm not. Quite the opposite, in fact, since it would be so much easier to simply reimage the laptop with Windows XP from the rescue disks.

It does seem though that I wrestle with configurations for laptops, desktops and sometimes servers when using Linux but I've never given up on it. I likely never will. It would be nice, however, if everything just worked right out of the box like it's supposed to--at least once in a while.

And, no, I don't check the hardware compatibility list prior to purchase. If I did, I might not have any hardware at all. I buy what's available without regard for compatibility because I know that mass-produced hardware will have support--or should.

Like many of you, when I install Linux for someone else, I'd like for it to just 'work' without any problems so that they can see how awesome it is. Now, my kids are wondering if it was really worth all the trouble. 15 minutes to install and 15 hours to troubleshoot is not a good showing for a basic service like wireless networking.

Late-breaking Update: Fortunately, just a while ago, I found this fix that worked for me. Now the kids have a fully functional laptop that runs like one with much more RAM and a more powerful CPU.
I'll update you on their adoption of Linux. Who knows, this could be the beginning of a whole new era of posts generated from the experiences of the cave dwellers in my house.

News Story The Late Great Mythical SCO

khess — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 21:24:56 GMT

OK, I can't resist this whole SCO thing, since it has again raised its ugly head. My previous post on the subject the other day drew a lot of attention from a diverse gaggle of readers and commenters so I thought I'd go back to the well at least once more for good measure. Here's the real shocker in the whole SCO v. Everyone mess--they still think that they own Unix. Though they never produced proof in the past 6 or so years since the original lawsuit maelstrom began. They are so convinced that they own Unix, that they have it clearly stated so on their website.

Here is an excerpt and a link to that informative page:

Quote:

SCO owns all rights and ownership of the core UNIX operating system source code originally developed by AT&T/Bell Labs. SCO’s ownership includes system source code, including all versions and copies, SCO OpenServer, and substantial copyrights and source code to UnixWare. SCO is the exclusive licensor to UNIX-based system software providers.

Pretty ballsy, huh?

My original post from May 2008 explains that SCO doesn't own Unix, Novell does. Novell never transferred the copyright to them and Novell has proof. SCO purchased UnixWare from Novell, which is a standalone product but is not Unix in the pure and copyrighted sense of the word. It is a derivative thereof.

At this point, I'm not sure if it matters who owns Unix. It might not matter who holds the copyright, the license, or the original source code. Why does it not matter, you ask? In the Linux perspective, Linus wrote the Linux kernel off of Minix and publicly available code--plus original code of his own.

Not that anyone in this world is 100% above reproach but come on, Linux Torvalds is one smart cookie who doesn't need or desire to rip off anyone's source code.

Let's say for a moment that Linus had ripped off the source from SCO or whomever, would he still be able to update the kernel and include new code into it on his own? If he's too lazy to do his own coding, what makes anyone think that he would have continued the project for more than 15 years? It would have been far easier to admit his transgression, take a smack on the head and go about his business. He chose, instead, to continue his legitimate pursuit of the perfect operating system kernel and allow others to expand on his creation.

On the shoulders of giants, as Einstein once said.

SCO was once a great company. I loved SCO. It was everywhere. It was stable. It was awesome. But then Linux came along and took the world by storm and put SCO into a tailspin.

It doesn't have to be this way. Radios still exist. Trains still exist. Horses still exist. SCO can still exist too. It just can't have the same impact it used to have.

So, to SCO, you'll always be remembered as one of the finest operating systems in the history of computing--you had your day. Don't spoil it. It's like that last Rocky movie--OMG, just retire and let us remember you as you were. Don't embarrass yourself with this kind of Al Goresque recountism. Just go away quietly--or don't--find your niche again and rise from the ashes with renewed strength and vitality. But, please, please don't continue this path of lawsuit destruction. It isn't pretty.

News Story SCO vs. Linux Again--You've Got to be Kidding.

khess — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:03:58 GMT

Just when you thought it was safe to return to those keyboards knowing that all is well with the world and the ownership of Unix is happy with its rightful owner, Novell; he's baaaack. I'm sure that I'm not the first to look at this latest news and say "WHAA? AGAIN? I thought we had this settled." But noooo, Linux arch nemesis SCO with the inimitable Darl McBride at the helm is at it again. I am so shocked at this latest attempt by the perhaps brain-damaged judges panel in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver to continue this pointless battle over the ownership of the Unix copyright. Can they be serious? Apparently so.

I almost didn't bother posting about this when I saw it but I feel that I owe it to my loyal readers to weigh-in on this injustice and clear abuse of the legal system.

Has SCO not spent enough money on lawyers and legal fees? Do they absolutely just want to spend every last penny that they have on this?

What do they hope to gain, even if by some minute chance in hell that they win this time, from it? People have been so burned by this whole crazy lawsuit that the good name that was once SCO is now so tainted, no one will touch them. And, I'm forecasting that their remaining customer base will soon be nonexistent.

So, here's my final* take on the SCO v Linux issue:

To the Judges Panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals: Guys, this was over in 2007. Have you nothing better to do than to reopen this wound? Come on, go play some golf or hit some tennis balls--it's time to retire.

To Darl McBride: Darl, I'm sorry that you don't own Unix. It sucks. Save your money, abandon the SCO operating system and just use Linux. Have yourself a frosty beverage and laugh at your former self for being so ridiculously out of line on this whole thing or perhaps seek out help for your condition--great progress is being made in this area.

To SCO's remaining Customers: Linux is a cool operating system that's free to use. There are several really good distributions from which to choose--please go try one or more of them. I also have some information that there's a little software company, a startup or something up in Washington state, called Microsoft. I hear they have a cool operating system that might work for you too.

To SCO's remaining Employees: Monster, Dice and HotJobs are convenient, online service companies. Check them out. They can help you.

Though I believe that what is legal and what is right are often diametrically opposed, I am hopeful that this will come to a quick resolution that is much, if not exactly, like the one in 2007.

*Unless SCO wins, then I'll have plenty to say about it.

News Story The Ubuntu Welfare Program

khess — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:15:38 GMT

Since its inception in 2004, Ubuntu has been the beneficiary in what seems like a bottomless money pit for South African entrepreneur, Mark Shuttleworth via his commercial support and development venture, Canonical. Since Canonical, Ltd. isn't an American publicly-owned company (and I don't know South African law), it's unlikely that a full disclosure of profits and losses is forthcoming. I have read that the investment made so far is approximately $20 million US.

How long can anyone keep pumping money into a project that might not ever turn a profit?

Red Hat is the world's most successful Linux-oriented company and has turned its open source business into a very profitable one with licensing, professional services and support, training and certification and other products like JBOSS.

Although if you think about it, Shuttleworth might have the money to burn for a while since he blew $20 million US to go into space and to the International Space Station in 2002. Apparently he doesn't look for a return on investment for everything he does.

No one knows for sure, except Shuttleworth and his accountant, whether there's any hope that Ubuntu and Canonical will ever be self-sufficient entities. My guess is that it will take a few more years with the current economic downturn to realize any profits from either venture and I'm not sure whether Ubuntu will ever make money or is even expected to.

I'm willing to speak with someone from Canonical or Ubuntu but so far have had no luck in making a connection with anyone for an interview via phone, email or The Frugal Tech Show.

What do you think?
Will the Ubuntu project eventually lose its bankroll or will Shuttleworth maintain the piggy bank for it?
Is Canonical profitable?
Write back and let me know what you think.

News Story Linux Newbie, You Have Options.

khess — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:10:08 GMT

Nothing gets people in the Linux World riled up like comparing distributions, desktops or editors. But for the new Linux user, the whole thing is a bit confusing. What do we tell them? Do we verbally slug it out in forums or do we offer gentle guidance to those entering the Linux jungle for the first time? It's hard not to offer an opinion in such emotional matters. One might believe that Linux, choice of desktop and editors are religious notions instead of technical ones. I offer the following gentle guidelines for the newbie who dares enter our sacred space.

Linux is many things to many people. For you, it is an alternative to Microsoft Windows and the Mac OS. For us, Linux is an operating system kernel that's used in creating Linux distributions. Distributions are a collection of programs, applications, tools and graphics to create an operating system environment comparable to what you experience with Windows or Mac.

The Window environment or GUI as some call it, comes in a variety of flavors or implementations. They all are similar to Windows and Mac but also distinctly different. Your major choices for those are GNOME, KDE, XFCE and LXDE. GNOME and KDE are great for Desktop computers but servers need less graphical interface weight than Desktops, so you probably would choose between XFCE and LXDE.

These days you have choices for almost every type of software that you've grown accustomed to on Windows or Mac. There are office suites (KOffice, OpenOffice), individual applications like Abiword and Siag, games, graphics manipulation programs (GIMP) and just about anything you can conjure up in your mind.

There's no single correct answer for every question concerning Linux or its associated applications since they all work pretty well, it comes down to a matter of choice.

Where to begin?

If you're totally new to the Linux realm, I suggest you try Ubuntu Linux. Grab the latest ISO image from ubuntu.com, burn it to an optical disk, boot your computer to it, install and never look back.
Forget all the rhetoric surrounding this distribution or that distribution--just use it, learn it and go from there.

Don't be turned off by the fanboys, fanatics and others who want to sway your mind into their respective camps--just ignore them, laugh at them and enjoy your awesome new computer.
As you learn more about Linux, you might find that Ubuntu doesn't work for you as well as another distribution--so be it. Choose another. Change monthly if you want.

Realize this: Your Linux distribution is a tool, an operating system--a righteous one but only that--an operating system. Feel free to explore this new world and enjoy it. You'll have allies and enemies no matter which camp you decide to stay in but that comes with the territory.

Welcome Linux newbie, we're glad to have you.

And, if you must know, I prefer CentOS for Servers, Ubuntu for Desktops, GNOME and vi. So there. Flame away.

News Story Do Open Source Software Licenses Have a Purpose?

khess — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 18:05:18 GMT

Today I'm pondering if the current open source model is still valid or if it's outdated. Do we need licensing for open source software? Do we need the GPL, LGPL, APL and all the other licenses that plague...er, grace us? If your software is free and open source, why bother with a license at all? The software writer owns the copyright so why put users or potential users through the paces of licensing? What exactly is to be gained by creating and enforcing a license for this kind of software?

Currently, there are 64 active licenses listed on the Open Source Initiative's (OSI) website and more are pending approval. 64 licenses is more than just a little ridiculous.

Seriously, you're telling me that the people who keep coming up with license ideas can't use one of the existing ones? The ones who read through the 63 other licenses looked at each other and said, "Nope, these just won't do--we need to come up with our own license."

Take a look at the OSI's Open Source Definition and then ask yourself if you find licensing a necessity or a frivolous exercise:

Quote:

Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:

1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

7. Distribution of License
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.

8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.

10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.

As you read through those ten criteria, would you think that a license is even useful? I personally do not.

If you're going to create something that is free and open source, don't restrict it with some bogus licensing scheme; just give it away and retain the copyright so that no one can reproduce your hard work without at least an acknowledgement of that work as yours.
In my opinion, as soon as you slap a license on something, you can no longer call it open. Putting a restriction on something that you're allowing unrestricted access and use to is just silly.

And, if I buy a piece of software, I don't have to accept the license before I shell out the money for it. I have to accept the End User License Agreement (EULA) prior to installation but do I get my money back if I don't agree with the license?

What purpose do any of these 64 licenses serve? What do they afford me as an end user of the software? What do they do for the software owner?

I think licensing, in general, is stupid and pointless. It serves no real purpose for the software writer(s) nor does it help the software user. I've heard all the wailing and gnashing of teeth against software patents but none against licenses.

What are your thoughts on the subject? Write back and let me know.

News Story Red Hat Linux: Beach Front Property with a View

khess — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:42:08 GMT

For Sale By Owner: One Commercial Linux Company with excellent history and reputation in the enterprise Linux arena. Profitable concern specializing in open source and Linux-based solutions. Offers top-notch distribution with broad hardware support, superb technical solutions, built-in virtualization, education and certification programs. Known to the technical world as Red Hat, Inc. and listed as RHT on the NYSE. At $21.60 per share (Today's price), Red Hat is the perfect match to your existing portfolio. Please contact a Red Hat executive for more information.

OK, Red Hat isn't officially for sale but this is a great listing for them if it were to be so. And, in reality, everything is for sale--for the right price.

Why would Red Hat sell itself to anyone considering that it is very profitable--to the tune of about $78 million US. Though analyst opinions vary widely, Red Hat is an overall good catch. From Red Hat's point-of-view, a sale means lots and lots of money for stockholders and executives--so what's not to like from their side?

From a purchaser point-of-view, Red Hat is a tasty morsel just waiting to be gobbled-up by the likes of Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, or Novell. Who will it be who takes that leading first step towards this phenomenal purchase?

Oracle is a prime candidate for the purchase but I don't they they will make an attempt at it. Now that Oracle owns Solaris and OpenSolaris, why do they really need it? Of course, need never stopped Larry Ellison before but, still, I don't think Oracle will touch it.
IBM has lots of money and could absorb Red Hat without any issues. Although they are pretty deep into Ubuntu, a Red Hat purchase would be a nice addition to Big Blue's already bulging portfolio. My guess is that they would make an attempt if someone else showed interest. Whether they'd be successful or pursue it all the way is anyone's guess.
Novell already has SUSE Linux as its flagship operating system and a Red Hat purchase, while probably far more viable than its current holdings, isn't likely.
That only leaves one player in this game: Microsoft. Yep, Microsoft. The purchase of Red Hat by Microsoft would put Microsoft in the leading role as an open source company, as well as, a commercial software development company. Microsoft would then be able to provide, without hesitation, enterprise solutions unsurpassed by any other company--even IBM. Instead of floundering at a third of its all-time high value of $60-ish per share, a Red Hat purchase would up its value to at least twice its current price.
How could that be, you ask? Easy. Microsoft would then have all of Red Hat's customer base including its education and certification resources. They'd also have everyone's attention as a one-stop shop for software, operating systems and solutions.

I'm certainly no financial whiz nor am I an expert on such matters but it makes sense from Microsoft's perspective. In recent years, they've done a lot of handshake deals with Red Hat, Citrix and others who produce and embrace open source software. Microsoft itself started Port 25 as an outlet for those desiring those types of solutions from Microsoft.
Microsoft also released its virtualization solution, Hyper-V, as a free product. You can't beat the price on that--even with Linux.

Has a new day dawned in Microsoft's world? Who knows? Only time will tell but it does seem that they've come to embrace that which they once hated.

Will you soon see a headline that reads, "Microsoft buys Red Hat"?

Yeah, it could happen.